MRAB Regulation, Legislation and Technical Committee Meeting

MINING AND RECLAMATION ADVISORY BOARD
REGULATION, LEGISLATION AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING

Proposed Blasting Regulations Amendments
(25 Pa. Code Chapters 210 and 211)

August 10, 1999
14^th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building
Harrisburg, Pa.

Members in attendance: Fred Wolf, Jack Chamberlin, Sue Germanio, Pat Krommes, Mike Young, Duane Feagley and Sue Wilson.

Industry representatives: Dale Ramsey, Jay Elkins, Keith Pucalik, Jim Sells, Dennis Kisthart, Terry Smith and Randy May.

DEP staff: Mike Getto, Marc Roda, Evan Shuster, Roderick Fletcher, Dave Hogeman and Natalie Shepherd.

CHAPTER 210 – Licensing of Blasters

Committee members and industry representatives supported the proposed revisions.

CHAPTER 211 – Use, Storage and Handling of Explosives

Suggestion that the revisions should not apply to coal mining because of the extensive RBI that was recently done.

No Action taken. Explosives were not addressed in that RBI. These changes are in the spirit of RBI.

Suggestion that flyrock should be better defined.

No action taken. Flyrock is easily defined in mining operations by relating it to the permit boundary. The lack of permit boundaries in construction and demolition operations demands that in some cases reasonable judgement be used.

Suggestion that some type of public notice requirement be added to the regulations. Much discussion occurred concerning how this should occur and problems relating to the notification.

A notice of blasting activity will be required.

Suggestion that DEP consider the use of electronic media for submittal of applications.

This is being considered.

Discussions on the minimum liability insurance requirement. One issue was whether the requirement was high enough.

No action taken. This proposal establishes a new requirement for a blasting operation to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance. Certain operations use very small amounts of explosives. There is no desire to make this a burdensome requirement. A company is not prohibited from obtaining more insurance.

This proposal requires that seismic reports be attached to the blast report within seven days. There was much discussion on this proposal. Some felt that this time frame is too restrictive. The proposal has been revised to make this section effective three years after the implementation of the regulation, so that operations can budget for the replacement of old equipment.

Some felt the increased-scaled distance of 90 is too restrictive.

No action taken. This scaled distance is needed because of the vibration limit proposed.

Demolition activities should not be exempted from the airblast limit.

Revised.

Allow for ammunition on the blast site if it is used for initiation of the blast.

Revised.

Allow six helpers per licensed blaster.

Revised.

Change the numbers associated with minimum trigger levels.

Revised to read 50% of the compliance limit.

Revise dynamic range of upper limit of airblast monitor.

Revised.

Continue to require third-party verification of seismic records.

No action taken. The Department does not see the need for third-party analysis/verification with the modern instruments available. This proposal will result in a cost saving to industry.

Suggestion that DEP review section on blasting near utilities for consistency with other TGD’s on this issue.
Done. Enough flexibility exists to resolve any potential problem